Los Angeles daily herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1884-1890, 1887-11-30

dino police robbery. In the course Of
this conversation Witzky told me that
he and Abbott were going to open a
pawn-shop, and if 80 he would give
me all the information he learnt
about stolen property and the thieves,
l told him that he would have to give
up the thieves and also the property,
but we arranged that If there were
any rewards he should receive
half. l once went to Witzky's
in the afternoon with Moore,
but Witzky was out. We met him on
the stairs and had a conversation at
the door. l never was in his room as
alleged and never smoked opium
there. never saw Mrs. Witzky till
she was here at the first examination,
and all their testimony is false as to
being in their room and proposing
that she should steal. In regard to
the note, Mrs. Brown is in the habit
of giving me information and l gener-
ally treat her when am in her house.
l told her that night that l had no
money to treat, and she insisted on
pressing $40 on me. l gave her note
| for it for knew that they were on my
track and would swear that had been
bribed. l gave this $40 to party
who gave me information in regard to
my business. will not give his name
publicly as his life would then be in
danger. Moore arrested Andrews and
it was his duty to file complaint, and
the reason it was not filed was because
the attorney said we could not make
the case stick. l never tried to extort
money from Andrews; have never
seen Hoyt at Mother Browns, and
never received $50 from him to find
his watch. l have never been intoxi-
Gated while on duty or while on the
force. l believe all these witnesses
who have testified against me are
prejudiced against me and are
nearly all lewd characters.
Cross-examined: l gave the note
to Mrs. Brown to prevent any thing
being brought against me like a
charge of bribery. was not detect
i've, but the chief knew what l was
working on. l would not have re-
uuired the note as clerk to the Police
Commissioners, if l had thought for a
moment. 1 was dismissed from the
force at San Francisco because Of an
alteration with brother officer.
have wife and two children. They
would have been here now if this
matter had not been sprung on me.
The $40 was given to man who gave
me information about the San Ber-
nardino police robbery.
This concluded the defence, and
attorney c. G. Stephens stated that
Moore denied all the testimony, and
said, 81 hope, gentlemen, you will
give due weight to this denial, as he
is i'll and not able to be here in person
to refute these base charges. He ad-
mits that at times when he was of
duty he was sometimes under the in
tluence of liquor"
Mr.. Gage, the attorney for the
prosecution, stated that at a former
charge of vagrancy preferred against
Andrews he had defended him, and
the charge was dismissed. District
Attorney Dupuy and myself thought
it better to let the bail stand, and see
if Moore attempted to extort money
from Andrews, and l believe if we
had been left alone and not interfered
with, Moore would have been arrested
for extortion.
Attorney G. G. Stephens then
briefly and eloquently argued the
cause of Moore and Afford, and was
followed by Mr.. H. Gage, for the
prosecution.
The Commissioners, after short
deliberation, returned the following
decision: FIN the matter of the
charge preferred against Officers
Moore and Afford, for conduct unbe-
coming officers, the Commissioners,
after spending two days in investi-
eating the matter, find the evidence
against them sufficient to warrant
their dismissal from the force. There
fore, on motion, Officers E. R. Afford
and John B. Moore were dismissed
from the police force"